In Defense of Sylvia Johnson

I've long been under the impression that our country is the best country in the entire world and I've long said that I wouldn't want to live in any other country at any other time. However, after reading on CNN.com about "cool mom" Silvia Johnson being sentenced to 30 years in prison for the "crimes" of supplying drugs to teens and having sex with them, I find myself losing faith in the judicial system I had long trusted to do what's right.

I recognize that the laws of this great land specifically prohibit the trafficking and use of illicit substances, such as drugs. But who are we to legislate morality? These boys were in the custody of an adult. They were not allowed to drive under the influence. In fact, Ms. Johnson made sure that they didn't even leave the house by inviting them upstairs to personally attend to them. This qualifies as criminal negligence? I was under the impression that a prosecutor had to meet a certain burden of proof. Was this requirement waived during Ms. Johnson's trial?

Furthermore, it's not as though the aptly-named Ms. Johnson was diddling little children. Ms. Johnson was performing a vital service for these teenage boys, nay young men. She provided them with the hands-on training that they would need to be able to attend to the feminine needs of their future spouses. We hear a lot these days about the sanctity of marriage. What protects the sanctity and provides for a happy marriage more than a satisfied wife? I know these are the things that those in power don't like to talk about at their cocktail parties. But I deal in cold, hard reality.

The fact of the matter is that we had someone like this in our community while I was in high school. We didn't call her a criminal, we called her a slut. Affectionately. And we most certainly did not send her to jail. We sent her to Andy Rosen's house, where we all took turns with her in his basement while his parents played gin rummy with the Mastersons.

It seems to me that Ms. Johnson's only crime is her unpardonable ugliness, but we cannot fault her for that. We are at the mercy of genetics in this instance. And we know how cruel a mistress she can sometimes be.

In conclusion, I can only hope that this case is overturned on appeal by a judge with the sensitivity and legal expertise to realize what a politically motivated sham this decision is. We learn early that abridging the rights of one hurts the civil liberties of a society. And I'll be damned if I stand by and watch the judicial activists take away my right to party and have marginally consensual sex with a woman nearly three times my age.

Must Read